Snap's New Spectacles Inch Closer To Compelling AR (theverge.com) 29
The Verge's Alex Heath reports: Snap's fifth-generation Spectacles have a richer, more immersive display. Using them feels snappier. They weigh less than their predecessor and last longer on a charge. Those are exactly the kinds of upgrades you'd expect from a product line that's technically eight years old. But the market for Spectacles -- and AR glasses in general -- still feels as nascent as ever. Snap has an idea for what could change that: developers. These new Spectacles, announced Tuesday at Snap's annual Partner Summit in Los Angeles, aren't being sold. Instead, Snap is repeating its playbook for the last version of Spectacles in 2021 and distributing them to the people who make AR lenses for Snapchat. This time around, though, there's an extra hurdle: you have to apply for access through Lens Studio, the company's desktop tool for creating AR software, and pay $1,188 to lease a pair for at least one year. (After a year, the subscription becomes $99 a month.)
Yes, Snap is asking developers to pay $1,188 to build software for hardware with no user base. Even still, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel believes the interest will be there. "Our goal is really to empower and inspire the developer and AR enthusiast communities," he tells me. "This really is an invitation, and hopefully an inspiration, to create." [...] Ultimately, I'm skeptical of why developers will want to build software for Spectacles right now, given the lack of a market and the cost of getting access to a pair. Still, Spiegel believes enough of them are excited about the promise of AR glasses and that they'll want to help shape that future. "I think it's the same reason why developers were really excited with the early desktop computer or the reason why developers were really excited by the early smartphones," he says. "I think this is a group of visionary technologists who are really excited about what the future holds." Spiegel may be right. AR glasses may be the future, and Spectacles may be well-positioned to become the next major computing platform, even with competition heating up. But there's still a lot of progress that needs to happen for Snap's vision to become reality. Road to VR has a full list of specs embedded in their report. They also published a reveal trailer on YouTube.
Yes, Snap is asking developers to pay $1,188 to build software for hardware with no user base. Even still, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel believes the interest will be there. "Our goal is really to empower and inspire the developer and AR enthusiast communities," he tells me. "This really is an invitation, and hopefully an inspiration, to create." [...] Ultimately, I'm skeptical of why developers will want to build software for Spectacles right now, given the lack of a market and the cost of getting access to a pair. Still, Spiegel believes enough of them are excited about the promise of AR glasses and that they'll want to help shape that future. "I think it's the same reason why developers were really excited with the early desktop computer or the reason why developers were really excited by the early smartphones," he says. "I think this is a group of visionary technologists who are really excited about what the future holds." Spiegel may be right. AR glasses may be the future, and Spectacles may be well-positioned to become the next major computing platform, even with competition heating up. But there's still a lot of progress that needs to happen for Snap's vision to become reality. Road to VR has a full list of specs embedded in their report. They also published a reveal trailer on YouTube.
Uh (Score:2)
No. If I wanted to look ridiculous there are other, better ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh ... UGLY (Score:2)
The way TFS sounded, I was expecting this to be more lightweight than the existing Ray-Ban Meta or Snapchat Spectacles, and with more features (like a display). Watched the video linked from summary... WOW! It's huge and awful looking! It makes Google Glass look demure and elegant.
Then they show some demos, like two people playing chess. Their hands reach through the board before it picks up the pieces! And that's not an end user video; It's their promo! And there's a bunch of similar stuff in the demo wher
Wow (Score:2)
I'm honestly really impressed by the video. Looks like it's a step away from being a commercially viable product.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly really impressed by the video. Looks like it's a step away from being a commercially viable product.
That said, there's (at least) one more step after that.
First, the product has to be good enough. Then it has to be stable enough. Too much of this IoT kind of bleeding-edge stuff is dropped within a couple years of release, replaced by the new shiny. Connected speakers. Garage door openers. Lights. All of those have had products killed by major manufacturers within a typical product's lifespan.
Well, that's not okay. We should stop buying this stuff until the server/cloud stuff is open sourced or
Re: (Score:2)
What light system?
I'm at least 50% through the advertised life of my bulbs and they still seem supported (Phillips hue).
Re: (Score:2)
What light system?
I'm at least 50% through the advertised life of my bulbs and they still seem supported (Phillips hue).
"GE Lighting, a Savant Company is no longer manufacturing the following products and has discontinued all hardware and software service, and product support. Products: GE Link Connected LED Bulbs A19 60W Soft White Single Bulb BR30 65W Soft White Single Bulb PAR38 90W Bright White Single Bulb A19 60W Soft White Single Bulb Sol C-Reach Smart Bridge" "Due to supply chain challenges, we're no longer able to manufacture HALO Home products. Effective immediately HALO
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I ended up with hue
Don't they in theory use open protocols though? I know there are other apps I can use for my system, and similar with Z wave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, in fairness, I'm lucky if my plain-old eyeglasses last two years between wear-and-tear and needing a new prescription, so asking for a decade may be a little excessive.
Invitation (Score:4, Informative)
Hey dickhole, it's not an "invitation" if you're charging for a product! That's called a sales pitch.
Fifth time's a charm? (Score:3)
I'm sure they have made impressive hardware but at this point they may have burned a lot of customers/developers with previous generations that failed to live up to the hype. Basically, they may need to make something exceptional and inexpensive in order to get any real traction. $1200 is not what I call inexpensive. They would keep a lot more independent developers if they had any sort of hardware trade-in program but alas, they do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Your UID is low enough that you should remember how much a personal computer cost in the 80s. Technical innovation can take way more than 5 releases. You sound like the famous IBM quote "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson. Why did he say that? Because they were expensive and hard to make.
How many generations of processors did we go through before a computer became a common consumer item? Forget individual hardware, I think we went through more than 5 generations of diff
Re: (Score:2)
AR glasses do not have a killer app. The development is entirely funded by burning billions speculatively without an actual market big enough to justify the losses. Meta did the same thing with its VR technology program: no market, no killer app, just speculative spe
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they always try to do too much.
If it was just a screen linked to my smart phone, displaying some basic stuff like select notifications, maybe some navigation info, the odd diagram for disassembling something, if the battery lasted a couple of weeks, and if it was fairly cheap, I might be interested.
Instead it has to have sensors for AR, a camera, and other crap I don't want or need. The real killer app is a hands-free display that floats in front of you, not AR.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, where's all this stuff? What I don't want is a golf game. What I do want is a lightweight HUD for showing current/avg/max speed, navigation, enhanced vision with range-finding, IR and night vision, outline/identify objects or vehicles, display AIS information of ships that I can see and identify ships over the horizon. Radio, AIS, GPS and internet-connected nav charts are absolutely necessary today with all the other ships and hazards out there. I use a lot of Garmin tech on my wrist. If it was in
So probably not (Score:3)
Because I have heard this several times before. VR, AR have failed at least two times already in the past and they do not look like they are ready now.
Re: (Score:3)
We're getting really close. Well, for what I want anyway. I can't speak to whatever AR fantasy other people might have.
What I want is a small and light mobile multi-monitor setup, so last year I picked up an XReal Air and their Beam accessory. It's not great**, mostly due to XReal's unfathomable incompetence, but it really does give you a good sense of what is possible today. Wearing the glasses and using the Beam accessory, I can sit on the couch, make a snack in the kitchen, etc. and at any time turn
Re: (Score:2)
We're getting really close.
I doubt that. And I have also heard that claim before. Several times over the decades. The equipment is slow, clunky and expensive. The tools to create content are not there. The demos are getting better, but that is about it.
Re: (Score:2)
For AR I agree, but the VR headset market is in the double digit millions yearly. Calling VR a failure would come as a big surprise to the people who own VR headset, the people who every year outnumber the people who bought Nintendo Gamecubes over the entire lifetime of the latter console, the people who outnumber that infamous "failure" of the Nintendo 64.
Let us all know when you fail hard enough to ship 25million units per year.
Too many $$$ (Score:3)
If it cost the same or a little less than the Q3 and had some advantage like not looking like I'm going swimming, long battery life, etc then maybe. As it is, there's just no way - much like I won't buy a watch I have to charge, glasses that cost $1200 a year, look extra goofy, and need frequent charging are not happening for me, unless I can use it for work or something.
Naw dawg (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. I already got burnt once with the whole pocketPC thing years ago, dropped over $1000 on an iPaq to develop software for the platform. Complete waste of money.
The smart thing for them to do would be to have a freely available hardware simulator that developers can use to develop software for it, to at least get to the point where they can see if the APIs and toolchains are sufficiently good to be worth the effort - or have the platform able to generic VR APIs so there is minimal changes needed to sup
They are doing it wrong (Score:2)
Does "almost compelling" make sense? (Score:1)
...A superlative with erectile dysfunction.
Empower, Inspire (Score:1)
So this means (Score:2)
we're only infinity plus 1 centuries away from them being even remotely viable...
$1188 is nothing (Score:2)
"Snap is asking developers to pay $1,188 to build software for hardware with no user base."
If you consider the time a developer puts into the most basic app, the $1188 cost is a trivial investment. Now, do I believe regular users will pay that much? No, not at all.
goofy glass (Score:2)
Noone's going to wear those goofy looking things, except in a workplace where they are AR equipment (e.g. to identify parts in a warehouse, or a server room).
The main use-case I have for AR would be _discrete_ integration into my (prescription) spectacles, to aid with personal navigation, a to-do list, integrate my smart phone's notifications, or identifying people's faces and floating a name above their heads. But these aren't it.